[Alupis]

I think you might be stretching this a lot... try to drive past the front gate at your local military base and we can see just how reserved their use of force is.

It is true, however, that the military has strict rules for when lethal force are permitted. I'm not sure how that counters anything said here, since LE also has very strict rules.

In hindsight, we can all examine the facts and agree the force used in that situation was unwarranted. But that's the benefit of hindsight.

Regardless, we should not focus on how many rounds were fired. We should instead focus on how the wrong decision was made in the first place.

That is the point of this entire thread. Do not use round count to indicate anything. It just doesn't indicate anything...

[fritztastic]

The active threat of someone intentionally driving through a security checkpoint at a military base is an entirely different context. At the point they're crossing the threshold they've already disregarded very obvious markings, signs, obstacles, and undobtedly commands from the sentries on post. There are a number of scenarios for which there are pre planned responses- deviating from those leaves you facing the UCMJ and you're expected to have a very solid justification for using deadly force.

Shooting at a vehicle not actively causing harm due to a perceived threat because it looks like the vehicle of someone you reasonably expect to be a threat is... well, that's a stretch.

Anecdotally I can say from personal experience there is a lot more restraint being used when guarding people/places relating to national security in place where you can reasonably expect to encounter threats and terrorism than the amount of restraint police here use at civilians domestically.

[heavyset_go]

I live in a residential area outside of a military base. Civilians accidentally drive into the base's properties and roads all the time. The most that happens is that someone in camo tells you that you're trespassing and to not do it again. Speaking from experience.

[vkou]

> since LE also has very strict rules.

Those strict rules boil down to 'whenever you feel threatened.'

If it ever goes to court, the prosecution simply has to prove that the officer in question was thinking the wrong thoughts when he pulled the trigger. Which is, of course, next-to-impossible.

[Alupis]

> the prosecution simply has to prove that the officer in question was thinking the wrong thoughts when he pulled the trigger.

Close, but not quite. It's not about what the person was thinking, it's about what a "reasonable person" would think given the same situation.

For what it's worth, this is how it works for civilians too.

The only burden is to convince a jury a reasonable person would also believe there was a threat given the same situation. Reasonable meaning having the same information as the people involved, ie. without the benefit of hindsight or later discovered facts.

[vkou]

> it's about what a "reasonable person" would think given the same situation.

Then why are the seven LAPD officers that shot at the pickup truck during their manhunt for Dorner not serving ten-to-twenty?

Because if me and six of my closest friends shot up a random, non-threatening truck with two women in it, there's not a jury in the world who wouldn't convict us, and there's not a prosecutor in the world who would decline to press charges.

They are only held to the same standards as the rest of us in theory. In practice, the bar is so low, it's practically nonexistant.

[Alupis]

I think you answered your own question. Because a "reasonable person", given all the same facts the officers had at the moment the shooting occurred, felt the use of force was justified.

They did not just get together and shoot up a non-threatening truck with two women in it, as you say. That's what we would say in hindsight, given the facts as-discovered after the incident.

The question you should be asking, but didn't, is why the first officer that opened fire is not in trouble for an obvious (in hindsight) wrong call. I would hazard to guess qualified immunity played into that officer's case. Perhaps that is where you should focus.... not on the number of rounds used.

[vkou]

> I think you answered your own question. Because a "reasonable person", given all the same facts the officers had at the moment the shooting occurred, felt the use of force was justified.

In no universe were they justified in their manhunt for a 250lb man to open fire at a pickup truck of the wrong model and color, driven by two women.

The first rule of using firearms, regardless of whether you shoot one round, or one hundred and five, is that you need to know what the hell you're shooting at before you do it. Are you saying that they opened fire without having any idea who they were shooting at? What kind of reasonable person would do so? One that is blind? One that has zero regard for human life?

That's not a lapse in judgement, that's not a 'whoopsie daisies', that's not grounds for a civil suit, that's a felony if done by anyone without a badge. A hanging offense if someone were killed over it.

[Alupis]

What I'm saying is clearly a jury (if this went to court, I don't know and will not research further since it's irrelevant) had facts and knowledge that you do not. Specifically, the knowledge possessed by the officers at the moment this happened.

We have the benefit of knowing all the facts now, after the event occurred. We are privy to information the officers did not have at that moment - specifically that it was an unarmed vehicle without the suspect inside.

Very often the outrage from these events centers around post-event facts that were not known at the time the event happened. This is why it often appears like LEO's get "off" without punishment when the reality is they acted reasonably given the information they had at the moment.

Perhaps it should be discussed if the call was actually reasonable or not. That's fine. What's not fine is pretending 107 rounds fired means anything at all... it doesn't.

So no, despite what TV wants you to think, there are not gangs with badges driving around shooting up random trucks for funsies. That's just not reality.

> The first rule of using firearms

To be pedantic, this is not the first rule of firearms.